France grants citizenship to 12,000 Covid frontline workers(axios.com)
axios.com
France grants citizenship to 12,000 Covid frontline workers
https://www.axios.com/covid-france-frontline-workers-citizenship-df86d46d-d488-4009-b2f7-e166be464cd4.html
193 comments
Smart action by the French government. France is not necessarily the most attractive country for medical workers and doctors in terms of income so being grateful for their support and giving them the citizenship is a smart thing to do when France needs more people doing those job.
This has nothing to do with doctors... medical workers are a small minority of the people being granted citizenship, a lot of these were street cleaners, caretakers, grocery store employees...
They just took a bunch of essential workers who would have requested citizenship otherwise and lowered the legal stay requirement from 5 to 2 years for them.
They just took a bunch of essential workers who would have requested citizenship otherwise and lowered the legal stay requirement from 5 to 2 years for them.
Which is really smart because those people will remember they were valued by the government.
Service guarantees citizenship!
I see what you did there.
This sounds kinda creepy, but I don't think it is.
To be part of a society is to work together, if you've shown to be willing to go the extra mile for your fellow citizens, it's a good sign of being a good society member.
To be part of a society is to work together, if you've shown to be willing to go the extra mile for your fellow citizens, it's a good sign of being a good society member.
I wouldn't hold my breath too much. Immigrant communities have a lot of resentment for the French government.
chuckee(1)
Its not necessarily smart, these people will go on to impose large welfare, pension, healthcare burdens on the host society.
Its easy for the French political elite to sign laws like this, but the social and economic burden of these decisions are borne by the lower classes.
Its much more likely that this is a decision to add an extra 12,000 Macron voters to the rolls.
Its easy for the French political elite to sign laws like this, but the social and economic burden of these decisions are borne by the lower classes.
Its much more likely that this is a decision to add an extra 12,000 Macron voters to the rolls.
they contribute to the system so they should be entitled to reap the benefits regardless of citizenship status. Your argument could be said for the unproductives natives as well, who are a burden on society
They don’t, in France you pay money into healthcare/retirement and you don’t need citizenship to get welfare.
Valuing people who put their lives on the line during a major healthcare crisis is the right thing to do.
Valuing people who put their lives on the line during a major healthcare crisis is the right thing to do.
These immigrants in general have more children, who in turn work and pay for your pension. French birthrate is below 2.11.
If French society is anything like Danish society, migrants from certain regions will use more in Government services than they will contribute in taxes:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00148-017-0636-1
"Immigrants from Western countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from non-Western countries have a large negative one"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00148-017-0636-1
"Immigrants from Western countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from non-Western countries have a large negative one"
People from certain non-western countries have bigger disadvantages in respect with the language, education, either lack of, or degrees not being recognized, and financial means.
This has nothing to do with those people's culture or willingness to work or something like that. If a German immigrant had the same disadvantages, he would struggle just as much.
Furthermore, the point is moot anyways, because the economical value of a citizen goes beyond simply tax-payments minus benefits-received. These people are also customers that local businesses depend on, and any money spent on benefits will mostly directly flow back into the local economy.
Another important point is that these disadvantages disappear over the generations.
Another VERY important fact is that immigrants actually save us from the massive costs of an increasingly 'grey' society (due to low birth rate).
I'm not going to put every reason here how immigrants provide benefits. But I hope it's clear that there's a little bit more involved with determining economic impact than just tax minus benefits.
This has nothing to do with those people's culture or willingness to work or something like that. If a German immigrant had the same disadvantages, he would struggle just as much.
Furthermore, the point is moot anyways, because the economical value of a citizen goes beyond simply tax-payments minus benefits-received. These people are also customers that local businesses depend on, and any money spent on benefits will mostly directly flow back into the local economy.
Another important point is that these disadvantages disappear over the generations.
Another VERY important fact is that immigrants actually save us from the massive costs of an increasingly 'grey' society (due to low birth rate).
I'm not going to put every reason here how immigrants provide benefits. But I hope it's clear that there's a little bit more involved with determining economic impact than just tax minus benefits.
I visited Marseille a few years ago and the place is run down by immigrants to the point of no return. Filthy, druggy, prostitution everywhere.
Marseille has been run down by drug trafficking and decades of neglect by the French state not immigrants. In a way it has to do with immigration In that the reason Marseille was so neglected and poor is because it houses a large part of the Algerian diaspora which came after France lost its last colonial war something the French government would rather forget than address.
Will it still be another 1-2 year wait for an interview once they’re eligible or is that being sped up too?
Are you basing the question on your experience with the French immigration system? In other words, why would there be a 1-year+ wait for an interview?
Legally, the government has to reply within 18 months after your application, according to the page about Naturalisation on service-public.fr, an official website (idk if I may post links)
In some cities like Lyon, you can indeed wait 1+ year for the process.
Informally, the Administration / "Préfectures" are infamous for being slow, and requests are processed in each administrative division, so you'd rather not be in a city where there are a lot of applicants.
In some cities like Lyon, you can indeed wait 1+ year for the process.
Informally, the Administration / "Préfectures" are infamous for being slow, and requests are processed in each administrative division, so you'd rather not be in a city where there are a lot of applicants.
I mean, anyway, being naturalised here happens when you are in a stable situation, and is very symbolic in that case, so there is no rush.
If you live in France, you are welcome to be in here, you can vote for local elections if you're from the EU, you pay taxes or not according to your income, like anyone else, you can access the full social security system and other public services,...
I understand that being French is a stateless concept about living in here and sharing the moment, and it's not just a legal status ; so it makes sense if it takes time, but it arrives eventually.
If you live in France, you are welcome to be in here, you can vote for local elections if you're from the EU, you pay taxes or not according to your income, like anyone else, you can access the full social security system and other public services,...
I understand that being French is a stateless concept about living in here and sharing the moment, and it's not just a legal status ; so it makes sense if it takes time, but it arrives eventually.
Depends how good or useless your existing passport is. Travelling as a French national is a lot easier than travelling as an Algerian or Lebanese national. If you’re a Canadian or USian, it’s largely meh to get your French citizenship to travel.
It might be different now. I had read up to 2 years. There is a language requirement, but there used to be no test requirement, so the interview was to at least evaluate that.
Now that they require test results, there’s an added cost, but one less thing to evaluate directly in the citizenship process, so maybe they’ll do away with the interview entirely.
Now that they require test results, there’s an added cost, but one less thing to evaluate directly in the citizenship process, so maybe they’ll do away with the interview entirely.
They were granted the citizenship. Already done, finished, they have it if they want it.
They weren't made eligible for requesting it.
They weren't made eligible for requesting it.
This is the count of people who have already been naturalized. There were 16000 applications and 12000 of those gained the French citizenship.
[deleted]
It's similar to an existing law that recognize citizenship through spilled blood (Français par le sang versé) [0].
Basically, if you were injured in a battle fighting for France, you get expedited citizenship.
Interesting idea to extent it to frontline workers who risked their health during the pandemic.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion#Composit...
Basically, if you were injured in a battle fighting for France, you get expedited citizenship.
Interesting idea to extent it to frontline workers who risked their health during the pandemic.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion#Composit...
That's great news!
It seems strange to me that more countries don't offer citizenship programmes like this.
It seems strange to me that more countries don't offer citizenship programmes like this.
I can only hope that other countries follow suit in europe. I wish the american government would take action but our immigration system is so broken it would just be a drop in the bucket.
> our immigration system is so broken
There are plenty of those in Europe as well, in case you've missed the barrage of news about migrant crises, xenophobic naturalization policies, etc. Certainly, there are also countries like France that don't treat citizenship like some reward at the end of a pointlessly contrived maze, and these countries (IMO) deserve credit for that.
There are plenty of those in Europe as well, in case you've missed the barrage of news about migrant crises, xenophobic naturalization policies, etc. Certainly, there are also countries like France that don't treat citizenship like some reward at the end of a pointlessly contrived maze, and these countries (IMO) deserve credit for that.
Making it easier for foreign doctors, nurses, etc, to become French, American, English, etc, cannot go together with "helping the southern hemisphere".
The West is often accused of "pillaging" the rest of the planet. Whether it is true or false, what is sure is that this cannot go together with key workers and vital forces, being sucked into western hospitals.
The West is often accused of "pillaging" the rest of the planet. Whether it is true or false, what is sure is that this cannot go together with key workers and vital forces, being sucked into western hospitals.
It's difficult for doctors from the southern hemisphere to work in America. US licensing authorities don't consider most foreign medical training as sufficient so at a minimum they usually have to repeat residency.
And for good reasons.
Are you sure about that? The reason is certainly not the quality of incoming personnel, as even german docs have to repeat residency. And TBH, I'm quite convinced that the average german doc is better than the average US doc. The real reason is about having complete control over the health worker supply.
What exactly is the benefit to importing personnel who will work for lower wages and draining talent from other nations when we have 300MM+ local people from which we could train medical workers?
I fundamentally don't understand why people feel that they are entitled to a job in the US, that we somehow owe people from other nations a chance to immigrate, when we have entire swaths here in the country that have been effectively left behind by the economy (inner cities and rural america, especially Appalachia). Maybe we should focus more on training our existing citizens out of poverty and into skilled labor, rather than brain-draining the rest of the world.
I fundamentally don't understand why people feel that they are entitled to a job in the US, that we somehow owe people from other nations a chance to immigrate, when we have entire swaths here in the country that have been effectively left behind by the economy (inner cities and rural america, especially Appalachia). Maybe we should focus more on training our existing citizens out of poverty and into skilled labor, rather than brain-draining the rest of the world.
What convinces you of that, im curious.
I'm an MD and have worked on both sides of the pond. That said, I clearly have a negative bias against the US system stemming from (bad) personal experience.
What I can say objectively is that US docs are educated to be hyperspecialists. They do their thing, and their thing only and often have very narrow general medical knowledge. Europeans usually are more well-rounded, but that tends to backfire in smaller countries where there aren't enough cases to become truly expert.
What I can say objectively is that US docs are educated to be hyperspecialists. They do their thing, and their thing only and often have very narrow general medical knowledge. Europeans usually are more well-rounded, but that tends to backfire in smaller countries where there aren't enough cases to become truly expert.
Thanks for elaborating. What I was interested in is German-educated vs American-educated doc but you generalized it to Europeans as well.
My experience with German doctors is that they are generally dismissive and would rather do the bare minimum. I cannot assess their technical competence but Id rather go to a non-German doctor. This hasnt been my experience in Croatia, France or Poland. No clue about American docs.
> What I can say objectively is that US docs are educated to be hyperspecialists. They do their thing, and their thing only and often have very narrow general medical knowledge.
This is an absurdly bold claim. How do you go from a personal experience to being in the position to make sweeping claims like this?
This is an absurdly bold claim. How do you go from a personal experience to being in the position to make sweeping claims like this?
Well yes, it's personal experience. However, for me everything from study material to situational context to interaction with peers pointed to that being the case. Be free to make what you want of it.
The control over healthcare supply is pretty obvious given how limited the seats are each year for residency and matching process. It is entirely controlled by a system that has a cap on how many can go through to the next stage of mandatory post-med school training...
I know an Eastern European surgeon who had to become a lawyer in the US because of the licensing game.
The trade deficit nations send their citizens to trade surplus nations. The US is a unique country because its citizens don't have to go abroad, they can get their dollars straight from the central bank.
it's 12000 in a year, not 12000 this week:
"Un an après son lancement, 16 381 dossiers ont été déposés en préfecture sur l’ensemble du territoire français et 12 012 étrangers sont devenus Français" from the first link in the article:
https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/actualites/communiques/marlene...
"Un an après son lancement, 16 381 dossiers ont été déposés en préfecture sur l’ensemble du territoire français et 12 012 étrangers sont devenus Français" from the first link in the article:
https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/actualites/communiques/marlene...
Yearly acquisitions and naturalisations (blue bar) from French National Statistic Office:
https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2381644
https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2381644
Typical presidential election move, sadly.
This cheapen our citizenship beyond stupidity, I did work during the pandemic and I am not expecting anyone to reward me for it, that’s what salary is for.
Becoming French should be rewarded to the people who lived here for a while, showed that there were able to speak fluent French, proved that they knew a good deal of French history, literature as well as decent general knowledge and who embraced the culture.
I am not surprised France is not France anymore. It’s not a country with shared ideals, it’s just a bunch of people living in the same area.
This cheapen our citizenship beyond stupidity, I did work during the pandemic and I am not expecting anyone to reward me for it, that’s what salary is for.
Becoming French should be rewarded to the people who lived here for a while, showed that there were able to speak fluent French, proved that they knew a good deal of French history, literature as well as decent general knowledge and who embraced the culture.
I am not surprised France is not France anymore. It’s not a country with shared ideals, it’s just a bunch of people living in the same area.
> This cheapen our citizenship beyond stupidity
As a French, I'm more ashamed by your comment than by anything these people might do. It's going to be hard to cheapen "our" citizenship given how low French born people have dragged it.
> I am not surprised France is not France anymore. It’s not a country with shared ideals, it’s just a bunch of people living in the same area.
Despite what the far right like to pretend, France never was a country of shared ideals. France history is one of continuous struggles and disagreements. It starts with war in the Vendée, through Thiers having the communards executed, the pro and anti-Dreyfusard to Petain having the communist members of parliament expelled. It's even more fun when you consider that most of the people who fought for France in its darkest hour did so from a frankly internationalist ideal.
The defining factor of France if there ever was one is its strong and highly centralised state and its undying love for meddling with the lives of its citizen and private companies. France is first and foremost a state more than a nation. You could argue that the French nation is actually defined by adherence to the Jacobin ideal of the state.
I really wish people stopped believing the tosh the state cronies served to peasants and labourers at the beginning of the 20th century to convince them to go die in a trench.
As a French, I'm more ashamed by your comment than by anything these people might do. It's going to be hard to cheapen "our" citizenship given how low French born people have dragged it.
> I am not surprised France is not France anymore. It’s not a country with shared ideals, it’s just a bunch of people living in the same area.
Despite what the far right like to pretend, France never was a country of shared ideals. France history is one of continuous struggles and disagreements. It starts with war in the Vendée, through Thiers having the communards executed, the pro and anti-Dreyfusard to Petain having the communist members of parliament expelled. It's even more fun when you consider that most of the people who fought for France in its darkest hour did so from a frankly internationalist ideal.
The defining factor of France if there ever was one is its strong and highly centralised state and its undying love for meddling with the lives of its citizen and private companies. France is first and foremost a state more than a nation. You could argue that the French nation is actually defined by adherence to the Jacobin ideal of the state.
I really wish people stopped believing the tosh the state cronies served to peasants and labourers at the beginning of the 20th century to convince them to go die in a trench.
> Typical presidential election move, sadly.
How do you assume that it will have any impact on the elections ?
I doubt that 12k people will change the outcome. I doubt they will all vote. Even more for Macron.
Far right people who tend to agreed with Macron's ideas will find this problematic to say the least. So know they will look for alternatives.
Moderate people don't exist or don't vote.
It will not change the mind of left people. Or they will see it as a move so they will hate Macron even more.
So I don't see what positive outcome for his reelection he could be expecting from this "move".
How do you assume that it will have any impact on the elections ?
I doubt that 12k people will change the outcome. I doubt they will all vote. Even more for Macron.
Far right people who tend to agreed with Macron's ideas will find this problematic to say the least. So know they will look for alternatives.
Moderate people don't exist or don't vote.
It will not change the mind of left people. Or they will see it as a move so they will hate Macron even more.
So I don't see what positive outcome for his reelection he could be expecting from this "move".
Disagree a bit. Am French too, immigrant in another country. I understand I'm a guest, and do what you say in my new home.
However, in exceptional circumstances, serving the country, even if by chance, warrant a bit of leeway. Our citizenship is not a "valuable" resource we must keep to ourselves, it's an admission we like each other.
France has always been a bunch of people living in the same area. Go to Marseille and tell me they share your ideas, if you're from Normandy. If feel more at home in China than there :D
However, in exceptional circumstances, serving the country, even if by chance, warrant a bit of leeway. Our citizenship is not a "valuable" resource we must keep to ourselves, it's an admission we like each other.
France has always been a bunch of people living in the same area. Go to Marseille and tell me they share your ideas, if you're from Normandy. If feel more at home in China than there :D
> France has always been a bunch of people living in the same area.
This.
Saying "France is not France anymore" is a typical MAGA (or FFGE) move. You have your own idea of what the country is, based on your narrow experience of it, and you see it moving from this view, so you think that the whole country is not the same anymore. But every country changes, the World changes. So no matter when you are or where you are, a country is always "not the same anymore". And if you liked what it was sometimes and don't like what it currently is, yeah, maybe it was "better" before. But some other people find it better now. And other even thought it was better at a time before you found it great.
So saying a country is not as good as it was is just being an old man yelling at clouds.
This.
Saying "France is not France anymore" is a typical MAGA (or FFGE) move. You have your own idea of what the country is, based on your narrow experience of it, and you see it moving from this view, so you think that the whole country is not the same anymore. But every country changes, the World changes. So no matter when you are or where you are, a country is always "not the same anymore". And if you liked what it was sometimes and don't like what it currently is, yeah, maybe it was "better" before. But some other people find it better now. And other even thought it was better at a time before you found it great.
So saying a country is not as good as it was is just being an old man yelling at clouds.
I assume most of the people who negatively responded to you never lived in / near Cités or parisian Banlieues. I also assume that they put their kids in private schools if they do.
I'm pretty sure Biden can do similar with an executive order. The feds do own the entire citizenship pipeline.
Will we take care of the people who took care of us?
Will we take care of the people who took care of us?
I doubt. Forget citizenship, the US is not processing permanent residency for its employment based applicants, many of which are MDs working in hospitals. The backlog spans more than a decade and if the applicant passes away, their family is subject to self deportation. The backlog is due to antiquated per country caps which result in prolonged waiting times for populous countries (I am personally waiting for the last 11 years). Forget citizenship, forget changing legislation to give them green cards faster, the agency (uscis) is poised to waste 100,000 of such green cards this year (which cannot be recaptured without legislation next year). These numbers would otherwise be useful for applications whose petitions were approved up to 2013. Truly dystopian.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-100-000-green-cards-at-ris...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-100-000-green-cards-at-ris...
Why shouldn’t we have per country caps? India and China could easily become the majority of immigrants due to the population size. Mexico is the top country of origin for lawful residents but they are our closest neighbor and many families have ties to both countries, especially in boarder towns. Followed by China and India.[1]
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-finding...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-finding...
The US issues approximately 1 million green cards per year. 86% of those (860k) are for family based and 140k are for employment based. Country caps for family based GCs is not a bad thing and in fact it does address your point domination by populous countries. In absence of a secondary differentiation criteria, per country caps are a good thing for family based GCs.
But for the 140k employment based GCs, it depends on the company hiring the individual based on a skillset/qualification and sponsoring them for permanent residency. Google doesn't differentiate between an engineer from Argentina and an engineer from India (arbitrary example). Why should one get a greencard within a year and the other have to wait 10+ years?
John oliver did a piece on it last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqnRMU1fTs
But for the 140k employment based GCs, it depends on the company hiring the individual based on a skillset/qualification and sponsoring them for permanent residency. Google doesn't differentiate between an engineer from Argentina and an engineer from India (arbitrary example). Why should one get a greencard within a year and the other have to wait 10+ years?
John oliver did a piece on it last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqnRMU1fTs
> ... per country caps are a good thing for family based GCs.
Would you mind going into detail on why you think that? To me, it's not obvious.
Would you mind going into detail on why you think that? To me, it's not obvious.
" In absence of a secondary differentiation criteria,"
I was addressing the concern of the PP who mentioned immigration being dominated by a few populous countries in absence of country caps. Ideally the immigration system should be revamped bottom up to include a point based system which gives points to educational qualifications as well as familial ties.
The current political climate leaves that option out of the window. Hence at least removing country caps from employment based immigration (which is 14% of the total annual quota) is a reasonable common sense fix.
I was addressing the concern of the PP who mentioned immigration being dominated by a few populous countries in absence of country caps. Ideally the immigration system should be revamped bottom up to include a point based system which gives points to educational qualifications as well as familial ties.
The current political climate leaves that option out of the window. Hence at least removing country caps from employment based immigration (which is 14% of the total annual quota) is a reasonable common sense fix.
> immigration being dominated by a few populous countries in absence of country caps.
Why is this bad?
Why is this bad?
[deleted]
Honestly I don't think it is. However a lot of opponents to removing country caps are always concerned with this. Hence I was saying if anything country caps may be justified for family based GCs. There is no viable argument for them to remain for employment based GCs.
Diversity?
Does diversity mean you have to have proportional representation for everyone on earth? Or does diversity just mean having various different ethnicities or national origins within the country? Does constraining some very large groups actually skew the demographics anyways?
Obviously these people can perfectly live on their own and forget their family behind
'Open Borders' lays out the extensive arguments for getting rid of caps altogether.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/openborders/
https://www.smbc-comics.com/openborders/
They're based on country of birth, not on country of citizenship of the individual or country of recent residency of the application. There's no reason, whatsoever, to have immigration tied to where your mother happened to be physically located when you came into the world. It's meaningless. One of my buddies was born in India, lived there for a couple of years and moved to the UK. He's a UK citizen. He's a principal engineer at a top Bay Area tech company. He's been in the India backlog for a decade.
Who cares if India and China become the majority of immigrations? What difference does it make?
What the US needs is top-down immigration reform and a points-based program like Canada and Australia. Those countries get to cherry-pick the most skilled immigrants and the most likely to thrive in their new homes.
Who cares where they were born?! That's literally the least interesting thing about an immigration petition.
Who cares if India and China become the majority of immigrations? What difference does it make?
What the US needs is top-down immigration reform and a points-based program like Canada and Australia. Those countries get to cherry-pick the most skilled immigrants and the most likely to thrive in their new homes.
Who cares where they were born?! That's literally the least interesting thing about an immigration petition.
There wouldn't necessarily be a indian/chinese majority if immigration were to "cherry-pick the most skilled immigrants"
As the current system is being abused by Indian consulting companies plahying the numbers games and filing for as many people as possibly to place them at low(er) income roles
https://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-pr...
As the current system is being abused by Indian consulting companies plahying the numbers games and filing for as many people as possibly to place them at low(er) income roles
https://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-pr...
> What the US needs is top-down immigration reform and a points-based program like Canada and Australia.
Right. Trump tried proposing a merit-based immigration system while he was in office. It quickly got shouted down and fell off the radar, by people and factions who didn't want to consider that different people have varying levels of merit to offer society.
Right. Trump tried proposing a merit-based immigration system while he was in office. It quickly got shouted down and fell off the radar, by people and factions who didn't want to consider that different people have varying levels of merit to offer society.
The US immigration system is already strongly weighted by merit but the lack of family immigration causes a lot of folks who marry internationally to just emigrate (like me!) - the issue with attracting "good" immigrants isn't going to be solved by making it more merit based - it'll be solved by making it more fair and predictable. Families can spend decades partially locked into green-cards that can be revoked without warning forcing them to relocate their lives. This isn't an attractive option for most people looking for a new home.
I don't know about Australia, but Canada also has a much stronger refugee program than America that bypasses the whole points system. The US refugee system got worse under Trump & I suspect it'll be a constant pendulum swing now whenever the GOP gets into power. You can't have one without the other.
The other challenge for America is that it gets drastically more applications than Canada does (not to mention that IIRC Canada does have a bottleneck). I think putting region restrictions/incentives for immigration might be better, so that you give preference to residency outside of already populated areas/less populated states.
The other challenge for America is that it gets drastically more applications than Canada does (not to mention that IIRC Canada does have a bottleneck). I think putting region restrictions/incentives for immigration might be better, so that you give preference to residency outside of already populated areas/less populated states.
How do you enforce regional restrictions on immigration? Once someone is a citizen they can move anywhere within the country.
If you want to make it attractive to live in some region, just create good jobs there and people will follow. Trying to force immigrants to live there if there are no good jobs sounds like a terrible bandaid.
If you want to make it attractive to live in some region, just create good jobs there and people will follow. Trying to force immigrants to live there if there are no good jobs sounds like a terrible bandaid.
> How do you enforce regional restrictions on immigration? Once someone is a citizen they can move anywhere within the country.
I'll preface this by saying that this my anecdotal understanding of the Canadian immigration process. Essentially provinces can nominate the immigration of certain desirable professionals, boosting their cases to the top of the queue for an immigrant visa. It comes with a requirement to live and work in the sponsoring province for a minimum period of time - something like 3 years. Immigrants are also eligible to apply for citizenship after 3 years of residency, and citizens have the right to live and work anywhere. From my understanding of the provincial nominee system is that they strongly prefer that you have an existing social and family network within the province, encouraging you to stay put even after you become a citizen.
I'll preface this by saying that this my anecdotal understanding of the Canadian immigration process. Essentially provinces can nominate the immigration of certain desirable professionals, boosting their cases to the top of the queue for an immigrant visa. It comes with a requirement to live and work in the sponsoring province for a minimum period of time - something like 3 years. Immigrants are also eligible to apply for citizenship after 3 years of residency, and citizens have the right to live and work anywhere. From my understanding of the provincial nominee system is that they strongly prefer that you have an existing social and family network within the province, encouraging you to stay put even after you become a citizen.
First, green card != citizenship. You don't get citizenship until 5 years have passed & residency limits are typically in the 3-5 year range, not beyond. Once someone establishes roots for 3-5 years, they usually stick around there long term anyway (unless they're young & childless).
Secondly, you know how you fill out taxes every year & you have to say where your primary residence was for tax purposes? That's how you enforce it.
Secondly, you know how you fill out taxes every year & you have to say where your primary residence was for tax purposes? That's how you enforce it.
> How do you enforce regional restrictions on immigration? Once someone is a citizen they can move anywhere within the country.
My understanding is that there's one province (Quebec) that select it's own immigrants (quotas are per province).
They can't force anyone to stay so they tune their selection algorithm to match profiles that are most likely to stay.
My understanding is that there's one province (Quebec) that select it's own immigrants (quotas are per province).
They can't force anyone to stay so they tune their selection algorithm to match profiles that are most likely to stay.
I believe each province can nominate individuals under PNP. [1]
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
> How do you enforce regional restrictions on immigration?
You could ask for proof of purchase from local stores, check the address of the employer to see if the employer is located in that area. Check train/bus tickets.
> if there are no good jobs sounds like a terrible bandaid.
It depends, maybe you need workforce in some occupations in that area, so you tell immigrants who have expertise in that domain to stay in that area and fi you spend X years you will get the citizenship after that you are free to move in the country.
Its a fair deal, if the immigrant does not like he/she just wont come.
You could ask for proof of purchase from local stores, check the address of the employer to see if the employer is located in that area. Check train/bus tickets.
> if there are no good jobs sounds like a terrible bandaid.
It depends, maybe you need workforce in some occupations in that area, so you tell immigrants who have expertise in that domain to stay in that area and fi you spend X years you will get the citizenship after that you are free to move in the country.
Its a fair deal, if the immigrant does not like he/she just wont come.
Canada does have quite visible regional incentives for northern settlement - I don't actually think they make the northwest territory financially viable, but you will get a fair-sized income supplement.
Also to the Maritimes - IIRC the provincial governments can nominate individuals to bypass the quotas/caps in exchange for committing to spend a couple of years in the province.
> There's no reason, whatsoever, to have immigration tied to where your mother happened to be physically located when you came into the world. It's meaningless.
It's to avoid people using passports of convenience to game the system.
> He's been in the India backlog for a decade.
Truth is, a lot of that backlog is self-imposed. H1B are supposed to be for real employment for a specialty occupation. There are "Body Shops", mostly Indian owned, that will submit fraudulent applications to import cheap underqualified labor in the country. [0] [1]
If the people working at these body shops or their owners simply decided to start following the law, this would clear the backlog almost instantly.
> What the US needs is top-down immigration reform and a points-based program like Canada and Australia. Those countries get to cherry-pick the most skilled immigrants and the most likely to thrive in their new homes.
And yet how does it explains the brain drain these two countries have towards... the US!
[0] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/silicon-valleys-body-s...
[1] https://cis.org/North/Indian-Body-Shop-Indicted-Abuse-H1B-Pr...
It's to avoid people using passports of convenience to game the system.
> He's been in the India backlog for a decade.
Truth is, a lot of that backlog is self-imposed. H1B are supposed to be for real employment for a specialty occupation. There are "Body Shops", mostly Indian owned, that will submit fraudulent applications to import cheap underqualified labor in the country. [0] [1]
If the people working at these body shops or their owners simply decided to start following the law, this would clear the backlog almost instantly.
> What the US needs is top-down immigration reform and a points-based program like Canada and Australia. Those countries get to cherry-pick the most skilled immigrants and the most likely to thrive in their new homes.
And yet how does it explains the brain drain these two countries have towards... the US!
[0] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/silicon-valleys-body-s...
[1] https://cis.org/North/Indian-Body-Shop-Indicted-Abuse-H1B-Pr...
> It's to avoid people using passports of convenience to game the system.
Yes I'm sure people looking to immigrate to the US are checks notes becoming British Citizens. A country with notoriously difficult immigration requirements. Citizenship requires 5+ years in most instances to obtain (with a few small exceptions). Generally speaking all first-world countries have stringent rules.
> Truth is, a lot of that backlog is self-imposed. H1B are supposed to be for real employment for a specialty occupation.
I'm not sure that's what self-imposed means.
> And yet how does it explains the brain drain these two countries have towards... the US!
Immigration to the US is effectively suspended. [0] These days those folks are going to Canada. [1]
'"While the States has gone, 'Let's make it difficult to get the employees here on a visa,' Canada's gone the exact opposite, and it's beneficial for Canada," says Alex Norman, the other co-founder of TechToronto. "You had a fast-growing ecosystem here that's been getting a shot of steroids."'
That's what it looks like when you hang a "NO VACANCIES" sign in the window.
[0] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/s...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/799402801/canada-wins-u-s-los...
Yes I'm sure people looking to immigrate to the US are checks notes becoming British Citizens. A country with notoriously difficult immigration requirements. Citizenship requires 5+ years in most instances to obtain (with a few small exceptions). Generally speaking all first-world countries have stringent rules.
> Truth is, a lot of that backlog is self-imposed. H1B are supposed to be for real employment for a specialty occupation.
I'm not sure that's what self-imposed means.
> And yet how does it explains the brain drain these two countries have towards... the US!
Immigration to the US is effectively suspended. [0] These days those folks are going to Canada. [1]
'"While the States has gone, 'Let's make it difficult to get the employees here on a visa,' Canada's gone the exact opposite, and it's beneficial for Canada," says Alex Norman, the other co-founder of TechToronto. "You had a fast-growing ecosystem here that's been getting a shot of steroids."'
That's what it looks like when you hang a "NO VACANCIES" sign in the window.
[0] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/s...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/799402801/canada-wins-u-s-los...
> Generally speaking all first-world countries have stringent rules.
First world might, other countries don't. So it would be easy to get citizenship from one of those and then use it to bypass the cap.
> I'm not sure that's what self-imposed means.
Indian nationals applying for fraudulent visas.
> and it's beneficial for Canada
Is it really? How's the VC ecosystem? Unicorns? Not long ago the government bragged to investors that Canadians devs were worth 50K less than their American counterparts. [0]
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/4178326/amazon-vancouver-tech-wor...
First world might, other countries don't. So it would be easy to get citizenship from one of those and then use it to bypass the cap.
> I'm not sure that's what self-imposed means.
Indian nationals applying for fraudulent visas.
> and it's beneficial for Canada
Is it really? How's the VC ecosystem? Unicorns? Not long ago the government bragged to investors that Canadians devs were worth 50K less than their American counterparts. [0]
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/4178326/amazon-vancouver-tech-wor...
> First world might, other countries don't. So it would be easy to get citizenship from one of those and then use it to bypass the cap.
In this case I was saying that quotas and caps would still apply but be basted on citizenship instead of place of birth. If everyone started buying Cayman Islands citizenship instead, the quota would fill up fast.
> Indian nationals applying for fraudulent visas.
Again, that's not self-imposed.
> Is it really? How's the VC ecosystem? Unicorns? Not long ago the government bragged to investors that Canadians devs were worth 50K less than their American counterparts. [0]
This is a new phenomenon, and it takes time to turn a boat. I think it would be pretty myopic not to see the trend, however. The ecosystem will follow in time.
[edit] I think Shopify was the defining moment when things started to turn. If an Ottawa startup can reach a $200B market cap in a few years, that's going to create a lot of wealth, spawn its own startups and an investment ecosystem in its own right.
In this case I was saying that quotas and caps would still apply but be basted on citizenship instead of place of birth. If everyone started buying Cayman Islands citizenship instead, the quota would fill up fast.
> Indian nationals applying for fraudulent visas.
Again, that's not self-imposed.
> Is it really? How's the VC ecosystem? Unicorns? Not long ago the government bragged to investors that Canadians devs were worth 50K less than their American counterparts. [0]
This is a new phenomenon, and it takes time to turn a boat. I think it would be pretty myopic not to see the trend, however. The ecosystem will follow in time.
[edit] I think Shopify was the defining moment when things started to turn. If an Ottawa startup can reach a $200B market cap in a few years, that's going to create a lot of wealth, spawn its own startups and an investment ecosystem in its own right.
As usual, no reply to this comment is actually addressing the question:
> Why shouldn’t we have per country caps?
So, I'll give it a shot.
Let's say that 1% of the human population happens to have great genius. They're the cream of the crop in terms of ability, though perhaps they lack opportunity.
Statistically, where are most of them going to be born? In the most populous countries of course...
If you choose a flat-rate cutoff for importing talent on a per-country basis, you're choosing "diversity" (of birthplace...which might not mean anything at all) over "talent". Which would be fine, except that this particular route to residency was ostensibly created to bring in talent specifically.
Although, immigration is a highly politicized issue and practicality usually has little to no bearing on the policy in this area. It appears many other issues in America are heading that way...
> Why shouldn’t we have per country caps?
So, I'll give it a shot.
Let's say that 1% of the human population happens to have great genius. They're the cream of the crop in terms of ability, though perhaps they lack opportunity.
Statistically, where are most of them going to be born? In the most populous countries of course...
If you choose a flat-rate cutoff for importing talent on a per-country basis, you're choosing "diversity" (of birthplace...which might not mean anything at all) over "talent". Which would be fine, except that this particular route to residency was ostensibly created to bring in talent specifically.
Although, immigration is a highly politicized issue and practicality usually has little to no bearing on the policy in this area. It appears many other issues in America are heading that way...
> India and China could easily become the majority of immigrants due to the population size.
Ok?
What’s your problem with that?
Ok?
What’s your problem with that?
It's not very diverse, is it? You'd end up with many times more people from India and China as from the whole of Africa, for example. Basically no one from small nations would get a green card.
The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots.
The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots.
> It's not very diverse, is it?
Why do you think India and China aren't diverse by themselves, and within themselves? India probably has more languages than all of Europe. Would it be sensible to treat Europe (or even just the Schengen area) as one country, to "increase diversity"? I think that would be dumb. European countries are obviously very diverse and we see that more clearly because they're sovereign nations on a map. India and China are mega-countries and we fail to appreciate the diversity within.
> Basically no one from small nations would get a green card
Why would that happen? It would be a first-come-first-served system. If a person from a small nation applies, they'll get it at the same time as someone from a bigger nation who applied at the same time as them (modulo processing time variances).
Why do you think India and China aren't diverse by themselves, and within themselves? India probably has more languages than all of Europe. Would it be sensible to treat Europe (or even just the Schengen area) as one country, to "increase diversity"? I think that would be dumb. European countries are obviously very diverse and we see that more clearly because they're sovereign nations on a map. India and China are mega-countries and we fail to appreciate the diversity within.
> Basically no one from small nations would get a green card
Why would that happen? It would be a first-come-first-served system. If a person from a small nation applies, they'll get it at the same time as someone from a bigger nation who applied at the same time as them (modulo processing time variances).
> Would it be sensible to treat Europe as one country
Why would it? Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point. It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans etc have a more or less equal chance, and that's what the current rules are supposed to provide.
> It would be a first-come-first-served system
So you think immigration status should be determined by whether someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not? I'm not sure that's entirely practical or fair. Perhaps a lottery would be more suitable.
Why would it? Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point. It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans etc have a more or less equal chance, and that's what the current rules are supposed to provide.
> It would be a first-come-first-served system
So you think immigration status should be determined by whether someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not? I'm not sure that's entirely practical or fair. Perhaps a lottery would be more suitable.
[deleted]
> Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point
The point was in the rest of my comment. "Country" doesn't imply a homogenous, non-diverse group of people. And "diversity" is the purported reason for country-of-birth caps.
> It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans
You said China and India are countries, then went on to compare them to continents. Surely you see the fallacy here.
> someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not?
I didn't say anything about the 1st of January (or any other date). "First-come-first-served" means applications are treated on their merits and processed in the order they arrived. If two people with the same application, but different country of birth, apply at the same time, they should have roughly same result in the same amount of time. That's not the case today. And I'm struggling to understand how a single queue is "unfair".
The point was in the rest of my comment. "Country" doesn't imply a homogenous, non-diverse group of people. And "diversity" is the purported reason for country-of-birth caps.
> It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans
You said China and India are countries, then went on to compare them to continents. Surely you see the fallacy here.
> someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not?
I didn't say anything about the 1st of January (or any other date). "First-come-first-served" means applications are treated on their merits and processed in the order they arrived. If two people with the same application, but different country of birth, apply at the same time, they should have roughly same result in the same amount of time. That's not the case today. And I'm struggling to understand how a single queue is "unfair".
For immigration purposes, since the EU is one open territory, it absolutely could make sense to treat it as a single entity if you buy into the base ideas here behind the caps.
This is a really good point I had not considered before. I assume there is no policy to look for diversity within countries? That’s a shame, because probably many majority nationals from one country may apply and many minorities from those countries are unlikely to make it through.
There isn't any "look for diversity" policy at all. The law simply establishes caps for the number of green cards issued to applicants based on country of birth. Country of birth is considered a proxy for diversity. If countries were generally of a similar size IRL, and had similar rates of migration to the US, it might work better.
> It's not very diverse, is it?
The responsibility of an immigration program to its citizens isn't necessarily to maximize diversity. It's to maximize the benefit to the country. A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc.
> The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots.
Is it? Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year. I think there's probably a lot of wiggle room.
The responsibility of an immigration program to its citizens isn't necessarily to maximize diversity. It's to maximize the benefit to the country. A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc.
> The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots.
Is it? Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year. I think there's probably a lot of wiggle room.
> A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc.
That's what the cap is for.
> Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year.
Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out?
That's what the cap is for.
> Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year.
Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out?
> That's what the cap is for.
Yes, but it selects for the wrong things. It's an axe when you need a scalpel.
> Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out?
What on earth do you mean "out of control" lol. That's a value judgement you made that you're projecting.
Canada has low inequality. Most people are paid roughly the same amount - in line with much of Western Europe. The US is closer to PNG, the Philippines, Turkey and Madagascar. You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group. [1] Canadians value that. You don't, and that's ok too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
Yes, but it selects for the wrong things. It's an axe when you need a scalpel.
> Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out?
What on earth do you mean "out of control" lol. That's a value judgement you made that you're projecting.
Canada has low inequality. Most people are paid roughly the same amount - in line with much of Western Europe. The US is closer to PNG, the Philippines, Turkey and Madagascar. You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group. [1] Canadians value that. You don't, and that's ok too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
As a Canadian that’s hilarious. “Were going to pay you much less than other countries do and we’re actually doing you a favor”.
Nobody said anything about doing anyone any favors.
I said that the wealth inequality was lower, and inequality being lower by definition requires that pay bands are compressed.
Keep in mind that when you compare against international salaries, you have to convert not just to a neutral currency, but also adjust for PPP. Canada's PPP adjustment factor is close to +15%. That is to say, 1 USD goes 15% further in Canada than it does in America.
There are pros and cons to a more egalitarian society. Certain groups that would do better in other countries do worse, and in exchange certain groups that would do worse in other countries do better.
Per Levels.fyi a:
- Shopify L7 makes $324K USD ($372K PPP).
- That's a Google L5 at $356K.
- A Facebook E5 at $390K.
- Or a Microsoft level 65 at $287K.
Remote changes the game a bit here, but in the past your Shopify L7 would have gone infinitely further in Ottawa than your Facebook E5 would have gone down in MPK. Local PPP matters too.
I said that the wealth inequality was lower, and inequality being lower by definition requires that pay bands are compressed.
Keep in mind that when you compare against international salaries, you have to convert not just to a neutral currency, but also adjust for PPP. Canada's PPP adjustment factor is close to +15%. That is to say, 1 USD goes 15% further in Canada than it does in America.
There are pros and cons to a more egalitarian society. Certain groups that would do better in other countries do worse, and in exchange certain groups that would do worse in other countries do better.
Per Levels.fyi a:
- Shopify L7 makes $324K USD ($372K PPP).
- That's a Google L5 at $356K.
- A Facebook E5 at $390K.
- Or a Microsoft level 65 at $287K.
Remote changes the game a bit here, but in the past your Shopify L7 would have gone infinitely further in Ottawa than your Facebook E5 would have gone down in MPK. Local PPP matters too.
You accounting for taxes? HST? Gasoline taxes? The general higher cost of anything imported? How about the recent run up in housing costs? Houses are about as expensive in Toronto as they are the Bay area now.
Having worked in both countries, $300k USD goes way further in the US than $300k CAD in Canada. And that's even accounting for the housing difference.
Having worked in both countries, $300k USD goes way further in the US than $300k CAD in Canada. And that's even accounting for the housing difference.
> You accounting for taxes?
Yes, taxes are very comparable in California and New York on this income level. 400,000 CAD in Ontario is taxed at a net effective 44.8%. In BC 43.8%
In California you'd be taxed at an effective 42%. In New York you'd be taxed at an effective 43.2%. And after the Biden tax hikes go into effect this starts to look a lot worse.
Not to mention the Canadian tax bill includes healthcare whereas the US salary is reduced by $12,000 a year to account for it.
> HST? Gasoline? The general higher cost of anything imported?
You're making $400K a year and you think that a $55 average monthly gas bill is going to make a difference?
Yes this is all factored into the PPP adjustment. [1]
> How about the recent run up in housing costs?
It happened in both countries.
> Having worked in both countries, $300k USD goes way further in the US than $300k CAD in Canada.
I suspect this isn't true.
Now you can cherry-pick non-tech cities in the US, but I can do that with Canada too, and of course, the vast majority of tech folks have historically chosen to live in NY and CA for a reason. Will that hold? Who knows!
[1] https://www.oecd.org/sdd/prices-ppp/purchasingpowerparities-...
Yes, taxes are very comparable in California and New York on this income level. 400,000 CAD in Ontario is taxed at a net effective 44.8%. In BC 43.8%
In California you'd be taxed at an effective 42%. In New York you'd be taxed at an effective 43.2%. And after the Biden tax hikes go into effect this starts to look a lot worse.
Not to mention the Canadian tax bill includes healthcare whereas the US salary is reduced by $12,000 a year to account for it.
> HST? Gasoline? The general higher cost of anything imported?
You're making $400K a year and you think that a $55 average monthly gas bill is going to make a difference?
Yes this is all factored into the PPP adjustment. [1]
> How about the recent run up in housing costs?
It happened in both countries.
> Having worked in both countries, $300k USD goes way further in the US than $300k CAD in Canada.
I suspect this isn't true.
Now you can cherry-pick non-tech cities in the US, but I can do that with Canada too, and of course, the vast majority of tech folks have historically chosen to live in NY and CA for a reason. Will that hold? Who knows!
[1] https://www.oecd.org/sdd/prices-ppp/purchasingpowerparities-...
Isn't the biggest budget item housing?
> You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group.
You also can't have overachievers. This becomes obvious when looking at academia. [0]
These individuals are the ones bootstrapping entire businesses and economic sectors.
[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-global-brain-trade
You also can't have overachievers. This becomes obvious when looking at academia. [0]
These individuals are the ones bootstrapping entire businesses and economic sectors.
[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-global-brain-trade
Of course you can have overachievers, I suspect this is a very American perspective. Japan Airlines' CEO makes $90K a year. Money isn't the be all and end all, promotions come with more pay and more social status.
[edit] did you not have overachievers in high school and college? I suspect they weren't getting paid! Quite the opposite.
[edit] did you not have overachievers in high school and college? I suspect they weren't getting paid! Quite the opposite.
There is a diversity visa category that is specifically geared toward getting diverse immigrants from all over the world. Increasing diversity is not a goal of the employment-based green card system, and neither is it a goal in the family-based green card system (it is family unification).
The reason for caps is historical. The idea was to reduce any ethnic group from wielding too strong an influence on politics by immigrating in large numbers, but that is now moot because of mostly uncontrolled/lenient immigration from Latin America over decades.
The main problem with the US immigration system is the high prevalence of family immigration vs. employment-based immigration. The majority of professional immigrants, such as the doctors who serve rural areas, medical/pharma researchers, postgrads in various scientific disciplines and software and high-tech industry employees are drawn from the latter category, and the majority face insanely long wait periods. This is rapidly eroding the attractiveness of the US as a destination for these people, which can only harm the future prospects of the country.
The reason for caps is historical. The idea was to reduce any ethnic group from wielding too strong an influence on politics by immigrating in large numbers, but that is now moot because of mostly uncontrolled/lenient immigration from Latin America over decades.
The main problem with the US immigration system is the high prevalence of family immigration vs. employment-based immigration. The majority of professional immigrants, such as the doctors who serve rural areas, medical/pharma researchers, postgrads in various scientific disciplines and software and high-tech industry employees are drawn from the latter category, and the majority face insanely long wait periods. This is rapidly eroding the attractiveness of the US as a destination for these people, which can only harm the future prospects of the country.
> there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots
But why?
Why is it so important to you what countries people are coming from?
But why?
Why is it so important to you what countries people are coming from?
[deleted]
Why have caps anyway? There was nothing such in place 400 years ago, why should there be now?
Who will pay for all the social services required? The existing tax paying citizen via increases taxes and lowered standard of living.
We already have a shortage of housing, overcrowding in schools & major budget deficits. No, open borders are not the answer - no country has/allows them because of the reasons above.
Maybe allow them to steal some land and build there without regulations? Just like the previous people did?
Are you offering to volunteer your place to live?
A lot of things, like slavery and public beheadings were done 400 years ago, which aren't done today. Any other arguments you can provide to make your case rather than revisionist history?
You asked a question, I tried to provide an answer to it which is reflective of the common viewpoint.
You asked a question, I tried to provide an answer to it which is reflective of the common viewpoint.
And... why is that bad?
Personally I don’t think it’s bad and allows immigration to happen from more cultures and regions. GP was the one who had an issue with the per country caps.
The per country caps are intended to drive diversity, otherwise all of our immigrants would be from 1 or 2 countries.
It’s a good thing.
It’s a good thing.
datavirtue(7)
I hope not, America takes enough Canadian health care workers. This is better for countries with socialized medicine. They don’t need any more incentives to go.
This is, unfortunately, a win-lose game. If the US relaxed its requirements for nurses and doctors they could actually destroy the healthcare or many other countries. I've multiple friends that are experienced healthcare providers in Brazil that would love to move here but the rules are so draconic and complicated they have just given up.
In a way I think it's good they have these requirements in place as that means people in Brazil won't be without doctors but its also pretty awful for me to say something like this given I DID move here to work, so I guess anyone else should have the same shot.
In a way I think it's good they have these requirements in place as that means people in Brazil won't be without doctors but its also pretty awful for me to say something like this given I DID move here to work, so I guess anyone else should have the same shot.
> If the US relaxed its requirements for nurses and doctors they could actually destroy the healthcare or many other countries.
Some medical professionals find the US healthcare system to be unconscionable. Some would move, some wouldn't. My doctor parents were offered jobs in the US but they refused on moral grounds - forgoing a somewhat higher salary - preferring to stay in Canada.
The best outcome would be for them to move to the US, push down salaries (salaries in the US are something like 56% of all of healthcare spending) and that normalization would then stem the flow of foreign professionals while seriously benefitting Americans.
Some medical professionals find the US healthcare system to be unconscionable. Some would move, some wouldn't. My doctor parents were offered jobs in the US but they refused on moral grounds - forgoing a somewhat higher salary - preferring to stay in Canada.
The best outcome would be for them to move to the US, push down salaries (salaries in the US are something like 56% of all of healthcare spending) and that normalization would then stem the flow of foreign professionals while seriously benefitting Americans.
Doctor salaries only comprise 8-9% of total healthcare spending in the US
hm you're right, I may have found a bad source.
Yeah, as a Brit I find it a little irksome when we pay for medical training for people who sod off to the U.S. as soon as they are qualified.
as another Brit, I wondered if it is the case that "we pay for medical training for people", so I looked it up
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/career-planning/study-and-t...
and it seems that basically you can get a student loan for this for the first four years of your degree, then you might be eligible for a means tested bursary afterwards and a non means-tested £1000 grant. This scarcely counts as paying for medical training, in my opinion.
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/career-planning/study-and-t...
and it seems that basically you can get a student loan for this for the first four years of your degree, then you might be eligible for a means tested bursary afterwards and a non means-tested £1000 grant. This scarcely counts as paying for medical training, in my opinion.
That's true, but the costs to the student are heavily subsidized. It costs about £220,000 to train a doctor for the first five years. The tuition fees paid by students with loans are less than a quarter of that, and don't include on-the-job training after the fifth year, which significantly inflates the cost.
That's why doctors trained in the US typically graduate with around $240,000 in debt, while doctors trained in the UK owe a fraction of that.
That's why doctors trained in the US typically graduate with around $240,000 in debt, while doctors trained in the UK owe a fraction of that.
Why doesn't Canada just... compete?
As a cynic, I see this as a message to the healthcare workers that are unwilling to get vaccinated: you are replaceable, there are plenty of people waiting at our doors to take your jobs.
This a program launched (14/09/2020) even before the country started vaccinating its citizens. So yeah, you're spot on !
Sadly, it looks like I was: "Thousands of health workers across France have been suspended without pay for failing to get vaccinated against Covid-19 ahead of a deadline this week, Health Minister Olivier Veran said Thursday." [1]
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210916-france-suspen...
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210916-france-suspen...
I'm pretty sure the Ministry of Health will go forward and push the non-vaccinated workers outside even if they don't have replacements available. And considering how much non-doctors healthcare workers are treated here, I can understand people not wanting to work there. (also it's not as if French hospitals require being French to work there)
People should not have to be heroes as a precondition of citizenship. France did this before with the Malian migrant who performed a super-human feat of scaling the facade of a Paris apartment block to save a boy.
Risking his life to save a young child was a selfless and commendable act, and his actions really helped add color to the national perspective of illegal immigrants in France, who have often been discriminated against and viewed as selfish.
He supposedly began working as a firefighter afterwards, which France set up for him, and has since become a citizen.
What's the issue with that?
He supposedly began working as a firefighter afterwards, which France set up for him, and has since become a citizen.
What's the issue with that?
The issue is that *People should not have to be heroes as a precondition of citizenship*. There are hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants who are not super-human heroes but who still as a basic civil right deserve citizenship which France denies.
Why should everybody who can illegally enter another country automatically become a citizen of that country?
Pen testing border security. The bug bounty is citizenship.
Citizenship isn't a basic civil right. People who follow the law can get long term visas. And those who want to stay can go through the process of becoming citizens. Plenty do, without any heroism involved.
You don't get to show up and become a citizen just for the sake of existing.
You don't get to show up and become a citizen just for the sake of existing.
I don't see why not. If we want a strong country, we need more people living here. If people want to move here and start a life, we should enable that by any means necessary.
I understand that the current system doesn't work this way, but I also think that the current system is broken and unsustainable.
I understand that the current system doesn't work this way, but I also think that the current system is broken and unsustainable.
Most people would rather have stability of culture and the population not changing much compared to having "a strong country", especially with France where the standard of living is already high.
It's not a precondition, the overwhelming majority of citizenships (e.g. all of them minus 12,001) are granted through regular channels.
Rewarding exceptional or deserving people does not mean that those not rewarded have been treated unjustly. That is a perversion of egalitarianism.
Rewarding exceptional or deserving people does not mean that those not rewarded have been treated unjustly. That is a perversion of egalitarianism.
Rewarding exceptional or deserving people should not mean that those not rewarded have been treated unjustly.
Yet there are hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants beyond these 12,001 who maybe are not exceptional heroes but who still as a basic civil right deserve a citizenship which France denies.
Yet there are hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants beyond these 12,001 who maybe are not exceptional heroes but who still as a basic civil right deserve a citizenship which France denies.
A citizenship in a foreign country is not a basic civil right
A laudable advancement for the institute of state, and French political process.
I just watched Falcon and the Winter Soldier so I'm mentally biased, but this reminds me (or _doesn't_, I guess) of the plot, specifically the GRC.
Specifically how attitudes changed towards people who crossed borders to help out when the blip was undone.
Specifically how attitudes changed towards people who crossed borders to help out when the blip was undone.
Some of it is laudable, some of it is just political show, IMHO.
Indeed, was there really any pressing need to reduce the residence requirement from 5 to 2 years for garbage collectors?
To be meaningful this sort of programme should focus on people who have gone significantly above and beyond otherwise it just dilutes the act of getting citizenship. For instance legionnaires wounded in battle can apply for citizenship... Clearly not the same at all.
Let's not forget that next year is a major electoral year with both Presidential and general elections.
Indeed, was there really any pressing need to reduce the residence requirement from 5 to 2 years for garbage collectors?
To be meaningful this sort of programme should focus on people who have gone significantly above and beyond otherwise it just dilutes the act of getting citizenship. For instance legionnaires wounded in battle can apply for citizenship... Clearly not the same at all.
Let's not forget that next year is a major electoral year with both Presidential and general elections.
Why all this gatekeeping around citizenship? Why is 5 years the right number and not 2? If someone is going to live in your country long term you may as well give them citizenship sooner so they feel fully bought in as early as possible. And France has made the calculation here that, yes, garbage collectors that worked straight through the entire pandemic are both (a) vital and (b) likely to stick around long-term at this rate, so may as well officially recognize that now.
In secular countries, citizenship often is considered to be something of almost sacred value. Citizenship also comes with very tangible benefits such as the right to vote or - in many cases - entitlement to social security benefits.
That's not something that should be handed out lightly. That said, the current at least partially time-based requirements for naturalization in most countries probably aren't exactly perfect.
The question is: How would one approach such an individually impactful decision differently and more effectively? Immigration authorities often already are unable to adequately cope with applications for naturalization as is.
Further complicating matters by individually assessing if someone is likely to stay in a country probably isn't particularly helpful in that regard without a wholesale overhaul of the bureaucracy involved.
That's not something that should be handed out lightly. That said, the current at least partially time-based requirements for naturalization in most countries probably aren't exactly perfect.
The question is: How would one approach such an individually impactful decision differently and more effectively? Immigration authorities often already are unable to adequately cope with applications for naturalization as is.
Further complicating matters by individually assessing if someone is likely to stay in a country probably isn't particularly helpful in that regard without a wholesale overhaul of the bureaucracy involved.
Social Security is, more or less, tied to residency for EU-citizen across the board anyway. France has a long standing tradition of granting citizenship for service to state, nation or society (he right of spilled blood, bad translation).
And I think we highly over estimate the value of citizenships, after all they can be literally bought in some places.
And I think we highly over estimate the value of citizenships, after all they can be literally bought in some places.
> France has a long standing tradition of granting citizenship for service to state, nation or society (he right of spilled blood, bad translation).
Indeed, and that should not be diluted by lowering the bar to "has been showing up for work for two years", which is pretty much as low as can be and, frankly, an insult to those who got it by spilled blood or outstanding service.
I'm not against this program but, since it is done in relation to the pandemic, it should have been restricted to those who did exceptional things to help during that time , garbage collectors clearly haven't even if their role is essential.
Indeed, and that should not be diluted by lowering the bar to "has been showing up for work for two years", which is pretty much as low as can be and, frankly, an insult to those who got it by spilled blood or outstanding service.
I'm not against this program but, since it is done in relation to the pandemic, it should have been restricted to those who did exceptional things to help during that time , garbage collectors clearly haven't even if their role is essential.
Most legal immigrants (non-citizens) pay taxes which in some form are used to sponsor the very social security benefits that you talk about, so why should these immigrants not receive these tangible benefits for which they have already paid for?
> In secular countries, citizenship often is considered to be something of almost sacred value. Citizenship also comes with very tangible benefits such as the right to vote or - in many cases - entitlement to social security benefits.
Having the right citizenship also means you can command higher salaries for the exact same job. Some authors have called this citizenship premium or citizenship rent.
To me all these seem like valid arguments against gatekeeping rather than for. In a way passports serve a similar role to what hereditary titles were until the 18th-19th century in much of the Western world, and what you're saying sounds a lot like the debates people had on newly minted barons not deserving the privileges of old blood...
Having the right citizenship also means you can command higher salaries for the exact same job. Some authors have called this citizenship premium or citizenship rent.
To me all these seem like valid arguments against gatekeeping rather than for. In a way passports serve a similar role to what hereditary titles were until the 18th-19th century in much of the Western world, and what you're saying sounds a lot like the debates people had on newly minted barons not deserving the privileges of old blood...
Because citizenship is supposed to be an important life changing decision with massive consequences at every level.
The dilution of the meaning of citizenship is a massive tragedy.
The dilution of the meaning of citizenship is a massive tragedy.
No the life changing decision is to move to a new country to become a garbage collector.
If you consider that the person collecting your garbage during a pandemic getting the same rights as you have by being born in the right side of the globe is a dilution of the meaning of citizenship I really don't know how to explain this to you any better.
If you consider that the person collecting your garbage during a pandemic getting the same rights as you have by being born in the right side of the globe is a dilution of the meaning of citizenship I really don't know how to explain this to you any better.
[deleted]
What purpose does citizenship actually have?
Why does it need to be such a huge deal, and why is it's difficulty to attain (unless you accidentally got born there) such an important aspect of it?
Why does it need to be such a huge deal, and why is it's difficulty to attain (unless you accidentally got born there) such an important aspect of it?
Accidentally got born somewhere is a very US centric perspective. Most countries do not follow Jus Soli births so this is not enough for citizenship. Citizenship is a matter belonging to a nation, past, present and future.
Traditionally families have been the principle unit of human organization and citizenship acts as a generalization of the family unit to the nation as a whole. The answer to your question is pretty simple if you replace citizenship with family relations.
This is perhaps changing as neoliberal ideology emphasizes individuals over families or collectives, but this is a separate matter.
You have sort of explained "what is citizenship", complained about some random ideology, and completely failed to answer either of my questions.
My country is NOT my family. My "nation" (whatever that is... a replacement for a tribe or something?) is NOT my family, nor even my extended clan. Why do I need to have "family" at a scale of millions of people, almost all of whom I will never encounter?
A reminder of the still unanswered questions:
Why does citizenship matter?
What does any of that have to do with the difficulty of changing citizenship?
My country is NOT my family. My "nation" (whatever that is... a replacement for a tribe or something?) is NOT my family, nor even my extended clan. Why do I need to have "family" at a scale of millions of people, almost all of whom I will never encounter?
A reminder of the still unanswered questions:
Why does citizenship matter?
What does any of that have to do with the difficulty of changing citizenship?
Citizenship is here to slow down the rate of change of the country/culture/population, which is something many country want (and by country I mean either the people voting, or the people in power).
Lets you live in a place without worrying of being forced to go back home.
Basically, you become a lazy local lol
Basically, you become a lazy local lol
Cool, make everyone apply for it them so that people don't get inflated ideas of their own worth just from having the good luck to be born within a jurisdiction.
The idea is that citizenship may be granted after a person has fully settled and demonstrated that they have integrated in society, including through fluency in language and culture. I think 5 years is a fair period for this to happen and for a person to also decide that this is going their 'forever' country.
If the requirements are too low then national identity no longer means anything.
There can of course be exceptions but an exception should require something exceptional.
> garbage collectors that worked straight through the entire pandemic
Same as everyone else. The pandemic has not changed their job. Compare this with front line health workers in overcrowded ICUs who had to face "war-like" conditions for months.
If the requirements are too low then national identity no longer means anything.
There can of course be exceptions but an exception should require something exceptional.
> garbage collectors that worked straight through the entire pandemic
Same as everyone else. The pandemic has not changed their job. Compare this with front line health workers in overcrowded ICUs who had to face "war-like" conditions for months.
I'm with you here, and don't understand the downvotes; I get that someone can disagree with you, but the argument seems reasonable to me, and made in good faith.
Also, I'd like to point out that of lot of commenters are from the US: as a French citizen, I very much believe that, for obvious historical and cultural reasons, our conception of the citizenship (nationality) very much differ.
Also, I'd like to point out that of lot of commenters are from the US: as a French citizen, I very much believe that, for obvious historical and cultural reasons, our conception of the citizenship (nationality) very much differ.
> for garbage collectors?
If these people stop showing up for a month, you'll find out just how essential these people are. If it is hard to find people to do this domestically, then offering citizenship to attract foreign workers is a good idea.
If these people stop showing up for a month, you'll find out just how essential these people are. If it is hard to find people to do this domestically, then offering citizenship to attract foreign workers is a good idea.
When the salary is raised, more folks will show up.
Yes, but sometimes overpaying for a service in order to provide high wages is net negative on society. Imagine trash service costing $500/mo or more. What's going to happen then? Probably people are going to stop paying for it and just illegally dump their trash. Then, even people who can pay are hurt because not only do they have to pay more for a service, but they also have to suffer the effects from people who don't use it.
Both your points are red herrings. In addition, France does not offer citizenship to attract foreign workers. It has sped up the process for a few people so that the government can have its PR less than a year before elections.
Again, I'm not opposed to granting citizenship outside of the normal procedure, but I think this should require having done some exceptional to deserve it. I have no problem with granting it to a law-abiding health worker who has pulled 60 hour weeks in ICU since the beginning of the pandemic, but I don't see what a garbage collector who's been doing their job normally (like everyone else) has done to deserve "a medal".
Lastly, France has a high unemployment rate so I don't think there is a need to attract unskilled foreign workers. If unskilled jobs are left unfilled (and I don't have data to say they are) the issue is not workforce shortages.
Again, I'm not opposed to granting citizenship outside of the normal procedure, but I think this should require having done some exceptional to deserve it. I have no problem with granting it to a law-abiding health worker who has pulled 60 hour weeks in ICU since the beginning of the pandemic, but I don't see what a garbage collector who's been doing their job normally (like everyone else) has done to deserve "a medal".
Lastly, France has a high unemployment rate so I don't think there is a need to attract unskilled foreign workers. If unskilled jobs are left unfilled (and I don't have data to say they are) the issue is not workforce shortages.
"Giving citizenship to foreigner" is definitely _not_ something that the government wants to have in the news during the election period (the election will be played, as usual, between the candidate that manages to balance fearmongering about foreigners and following the eternal french mandate of welcoming the oppressed.)
So if there is a calculation, it's to do it well in advance of the campaign, so as not to have to justify themselves.
So if there is a calculation, it's to do it well in advance of the campaign, so as not to have to justify themselves.
No-one forced the government to set up this program, which is not a usual thing to do, and obviously everything is political when you're the government. They have not really done anything on immigration, it's not where they want to go, quite the opposite: "immigration is an opportunity for France" [1] and this is part of that stance.
Marcon is appealing to the centre and left because I think he'd be quite happy to have another second round between him and Le Pen. It'd be closer than last time but he'd win. So ideally the best things he can do are things that make more people on the left vote for him and keep Le Pen on top on the right. This might be one of them.
I also think Macron launched his campaign with his visit to Marseille, which also looked very much like an appeal to the centre and left.
[1] https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Immigration-is-a...
Marcon is appealing to the centre and left because I think he'd be quite happy to have another second round between him and Le Pen. It'd be closer than last time but he'd win. So ideally the best things he can do are things that make more people on the left vote for him and keep Le Pen on top on the right. This might be one of them.
I also think Macron launched his campaign with his visit to Marseille, which also looked very much like an appeal to the centre and left.
[1] https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Immigration-is-a...
High unemployment and difficulty to find low-skill workers aren't mutually exclusive. In fact it's exactly what is going on in France.
Indeed, but I don't think "difficulty to find low-skill workers" necessarily equals actual shortages.
What I'm suggesting is that high unemployment is a sign that there are people available locally. If there are difficulties filling jobs, especially unskilled jobs, this therefore points towards problems within the employment market and benefits (which are indeed well-known for having systemic problems in France for a very long time) not 'shortages' per se. In such situation the claim that immigration is 'needed' to fill these jobs does not hold water.
What I'm suggesting is that high unemployment is a sign that there are people available locally. If there are difficulties filling jobs, especially unskilled jobs, this therefore points towards problems within the employment market and benefits (which are indeed well-known for having systemic problems in France for a very long time) not 'shortages' per se. In such situation the claim that immigration is 'needed' to fill these jobs does not hold water.
Garbage collectors are more essential to a society than any developer. Don't mistake being well compensated with being important. A lot more people are going to find themselves inconvenienced if the neighborhood garbage collector stops his route than if the neighborhood software nerd stops writing code.
[deleted]
Making the world a better place, one garbage can at a time.
Only immigrants work for their citizenships, I got mine and you got yours as birth and it’s clearly a dilution of citizenship.
This is a fantastic reframing, even from someone that already generally felt in line with this view. If you consider the citizenship test in the US, which is already far easier than in much of Europe (and certainly the places with more assimilationist tendencies), it's fairly clear that a decent number of native-born citizens wouldn't pass in the US, and people in the country in which I live would probably do even worse on the test here.
A question once asked here was which two species of animals are kept together in the local zoo. Another person was denied by their town (until appealing to a higher court) because they were involved in some animal rights activism, which the people in her town/community disagreed with.
A question once asked here was which two species of animals are kept together in the local zoo. Another person was denied by their town (until appealing to a higher court) because they were involved in some animal rights activism, which the people in her town/community disagreed with.
Witty but actually nonsensical.
The point of gate-keeping citizenship for immigrants has been explained ad nauseam in this discussion alone and is, frankly common sense expect for the most extreme on the political spectrum.
The point of gate-keeping citizenship for immigrants has been explained ad nauseam in this discussion alone and is, frankly common sense expect for the most extreme on the political spectrum.
> Indeed, was there really any pressing need to reduce the residence requirement from 5 to 2 years for garbage collectors?
Judging by piles of garbage decorating biggest cities of Western Europe every few months, yes.
Judging by piles of garbage decorating biggest cities of Western Europe every few months, yes.
Hadn't read about garbage collectors but given that it's a job that's hard to recruit for and has a higher accident than most jobs, it makes sense. It's the kind of job that non-immigrants tend to not want to do.
Garbage collectors are explicitly mentioned in the article and the original article in French.
I'd like to see data to back your claim that it is hard to recruit for that job in France. I'm far from convinced and in fact in some French cities it is a very coveted job because it is well paid taking into account the low number of hours (famously source of a long conflict in Marseille where they are paid 35h per week but usually work 15h and go on strike when attempts are made to increase number of hours actually worked...)
I'd like to see data to back your claim that it is hard to recruit for that job in France. I'm far from convinced and in fact in some French cities it is a very coveted job because it is well paid taking into account the low number of hours (famously source of a long conflict in Marseille where they are paid 35h per week but usually work 15h and go on strike when attempts are made to increase number of hours actually worked...)
Well, purely anecdotal but a family member was part of the local communauté de commune and they had difficulties recruiting Eboueurs. This is more in the country side where I imagine that the risks in term of accident might be higher? (at least when it comes to road safety), I do not know the situation in cities.
I had to look up that word (éboueur). I like it, maybe they'd have better luck recruiting with a classy french title. ;-)